Critical Encounters: Poverty & Privilege

The Big Money: New Help on Student Loans

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT

If you've got a diploma hanging on your wall, chances are it didn't come cheap. Of the 3 million or so college seniors who donned a cap and gown this year, about two-thirds of them went into debt -- an average of $22,500 -- for the privilege of that diploma. The debt of graduate and professional...

Man is fourth in UK to die from swine flu

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:08 GMT

A 19-year-old man has become the fourth person in the UK to die of swine flu and the first in London.

The teenager, from south London, who has not been identified, had serious underlying health problems, as had all those who have died in the UK so far. He tested positive for the H1N1 virus after his death at Lewisham hospital on Wednesday.

So far there have been four deaths among the nearly 7,500 lab-confirmed cases. On Thursday the health secretary Andy Burnham said projections showed that if cases continued to rise at the current rate there would be 100,000 new cases a day by the end of August.

The number of deaths will inevitably also rise, but extrapolation from the four deaths so far would not be statistically valid because the numbers are too few. A Department of Health spokesman said suggestions that there could be 40 deaths a day by the end of the summer were wrong.

"Scientific and clinical experts can use sophisticated modelling techniques to help us understand how the virus may behave, but that is all they can do – be a guide, not a prediction," he said.

Those whose immune systems are compromised, for instance through cancer treatment, or who have breathing problems, like asthmatics, or who are otherwise frail are at greatest risk from the virus. The south London teenager is the second youngest victim, after nine year-old Sameerah Ahmad, who was born with a rare life-threatening disease. The first victim was 38-year-old Jacqui Fleming, who died in hospital in Glasgow where she had been in intensive care since giving birth three months prematurely. The baby also later died, but not from swine flu.

The Department of Health said that it was possible to catch swine flu in hospital, where many people might be at risk because of their poor state of health. "Like any other place where there are lots of people, you could get it in hospital," said a spokesman. "But we're making sure that people with swine flu are isolated away from other patients and staff are very meticulous in their cleanliness."

Another death is likely to add to the alarm created by the soaring numbers of cases, but chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson warned that people should not attempt to buy antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu over the internet.

Donaldson pointed out that the UK has one of the biggest stockpiles of the drug in the world and certainly enough to treat all cases of the disease here. He warned on Thursday against buying antiviral drugs on the internet.

All those who fall ill will receive Tamiflu, even though some experts think treatment is warranted only for those with other health problems. However, some of those who have become seriously ill and at least one who died elsewhere were apparently healthy before their infection.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Is there pensions apartheid?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:00 GMT

False Tory outrage at fat-cat pubic sector benefits is a crude sleight of hand to divert voters' attention from the real wealth gap

Indignation at "gold-plated" public sector pensions is the latest wave in the Conservative campaign to create a groundswell of support for spending cuts and shrinking the size of the state. Rightwing thinktanks, encouraged by David Cameron and even by the sainted Vince Cable in the Mail on Sunday, have just produced a series of reports attacking public-sector pensions. It is a deft diversion from the real fat-cat pensions of Fred Goodwin (now reduced to £342,500 a year) and his ilk on to the rather more modest pensions of nurses, teachers and care workers: the average public employee pension is £7,000.

It's a well-timed assault, as private-sector employees still lucky enough to have an occupational pension open their statements and reel at seeing how very much less than expected they will get, with anything from a third to a half knocked off by the crash. Who should they blame? The bankers who bust the economy? Boardrooms who help themselves to vast pay, bonuses and pensions while closing company schemes for everyone else? No, the Tory hue and cry is turning them against public sector workers. If ever there were a deliberate creation of the politics of envy, this is it.

Rightwing thinktank reports have produced shock-horror numbers. Best was the British-North American Committee, which hit last week's news with this: "UK public sector pension liabilities now 85% of GDP." Good grief! Does that leave the rest of us just 15% to live on while the fat-cat retired dinner ladies, ward clerks and binmen live the life of Riley? It is, of course, a nonsense number, a statistical prestidigitation done by adding all public sector pension liabilities for those now retired to a life-time obligation to every existing state employee. Roll up all the money and describe it as a debt owed in one year and you get silly numbers. It's like taking all your mortgage and all the interest you will pay over its course, and comparing that total debt with one year's income. It will look wildly unaffordable.

The true figure is quite high, but rather less alarming. Public pensions cost 1.4% of GDP; and that will rise to 2% in 2027 and fall back below 2% thereafter. There is no inexorable upward trajectory. It may need adjustment, such as raising the pension age. As Adair Turner suggested this week, this needs to be done faster for everyone: we need to work longer. But dragging down public sector pensions won't do anything to help those who have no private pension, or a much reduced one. Cutting public sector pensions would not save the state much either: many are low earners so what they lost on pension they would claim through pension credit.

The real problem is the devastation of private pensions. Company pensions have faced rising costs as people have lived longer: each year of life costs pension funds 3% more. Share values have not risen as fast as expected, while funding requirements were tightened by the Conservatives after the Robert Maxwell scandal. In the 1960s, 8 million private employees had occupational pensions; now it's only 2 million.

What contributed to their mass closure was a culture change in the City as companies chased share price values to the exclusion of all else. A decent scheme used to be the norm for any respectable firm: many managers had not realised they could be ditched. But after the Big Bang, to have a good pension scheme was seen by City analysts as a sign of weak management, risking predatory takeover. So it happened that a country growing 30% richer every decade suddenly decided it could not or would not afford company pensions any longer. Last week's Telegraph leader repeated the refrain that the "primary reason" for the closure of private pensions was Gordon Brown's "raid" on pension dividends, but compared with the above factors and the stockmarket's collapse, that £5bn a year was a bit-player.

The Turner commission has led to a new compulsory scheme where all employers will have to contribute 3% of pay into a pension while employees pay 4%. It's a good start, but needs ratcheting up. In remaining private schemes employers pay an average of 10%, while public sector employers contribute 20% for better pensions.

Is that 20% too much, or is the private sector paying too little? A handful of headline-grabbing fat-cat public pensions for MPs, judges and a few others could be trimmed: as Michael Martin's £1.4m pension hit the news, MPs wisely voted to freeze their own pensions last week. But the great majority of the cost of public pensions goes to the modestly paid, more of them women, which is why the average is just £7,000 a year. Any meaningful cut would push many back into pensioner poverty. Yet a cut is what David Cameron rashly proposed last year. "We've got to end the apartheid in pensions," he told businessmen. The next day Conservative headquarters panicked and backtracked, fearing for public sector votes. But public employees have been warned.

The real pensions apartheid is not between public and private, but between the wealthy and the rest. Every taxpayer contributes heftily to the pensions of the rich, and half of tax relief goes to the top 10% of earners. A quarter goes to the less than 1% who earn more than £150,000. At last, along with the 50% tax band, incomes of more than £150,000 will from next year only get tax relief at 20%, not 40%. It was greeted with vociferous rage and the usual threats to leave the country, along with protests by the the very same wealthy people at the cost of modest public sector pensions. Tax relief still needs rebalancing to make sure most state encouragement to save goes to those with least.

Labour has a goodish pensions record – though you might not know it, as yet another report this week from the OECD put the UK bottom when comparing basic state pensions. Our basic was worth 26% of average earnings in 1979, but when the Conservatives decoupled it from earnings, it fell to 16%. But that's misleading: nearly half of pensioners are eligible for Labour's pension credit. Add in winter fuel allowance, housing and council tax benefit and free buses, and UK pensioners shoot up the league.

The state pension is due to be relinked to earnings in 2012 – though if the Conservatives are in power, will they do it? Labour's new compulsory pensions for all employers will be a long-lasting legacy, and not appreciated for years. The Conservatives seem to be heading in the opposite direction.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Fears for world poor as rich grab land

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:34 GMT

• UN sounds warning after 30m hectares bought up
• G8 leaders to discuss 'neo-colonialism'

The acquisition of farmland from the world's poor by rich countries and international corporations is accelerating at an alarming rate, with an area half the size of Europe's farmland targeted in the last six months, reports from UN officials and agriculture experts say.

New reports from the UN and analysts in India, Washington and London estimate that at least 30m hectares is being acquired to grow food for countries such as China and the Gulf states who cannot produce enough for their populations. According to the UN, the trend is accelerating and could severely impair the ability of poor countries to feed themselves.

Today it emerged that world leaders are to discuss what is being described as "land grabbing" or "neo-colonialism" at the G8 meeting next week. A spokesman for Japan's ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it would raise the issue: "We feel there should be a code of conduct for investment in farmland that will be a win-win situation for both producing and consuming countries," he said.

Olivier De Schutter, special envoy for food at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: "[The trend] is accelerating quickly. All countries observe each other and when one sees others buying land it does the same."

The UN's food and agricultural organisation and other analysts estimate that nearly 20m hectares (50m acres) of farmland – an area roughly half the size of all arable land in Europe – has been sold or has been negotiated for sale or lease in the last six months. Around 10m hectares was bought last year. The land grab is being blamed on wealthy countries with concerns about food security.

Some of the largest deals include South Korea's acquisition of 700,000ha in Sudan, and Saudi Arabia's purchase of 500,000ha in Tanzania. The Democratic Republic of the Congo expects to shortly conclude an 8m-hectare deal with a group of South African businesses to grow maize and soya beans as well as poultry and dairy farming.

India has lent money to 80 companies to buy 350,000ha in Africa. At least six countries are known to have bought large landholdings in Sudan, one of the least food-secure countries in the world.

Other countries that have acquired land in the last year include the Gulf states, Sweden, China and Libya. Those targeted include not only fertile countries such as Brazil, Russia and Ukraine, but also poor countries like Cameroon, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Zambia.

De Schutter said that after the food crisis of 2008, many countries found food imports hit their balance of payments, "so now they want to insure themselves".

"This is speculation, betting on future prices. What we see now is that countries have lost trust in the international market. We know volatility will increase in the next few years. Land prices will continue to rise. Many deals are even now being negotiated. Not all are complete yet."

He said that about one-fifth of the land deals were expected to grow biofuel crops. "But it is impossible to know with certainty because declarations are not made as to what crops will be grown," he said.

Some of the world's largest food, financial and car companies have invested in land.

Alpcot Agro of Sweden bought 120,000ha in Russia, South Korea's Hyundai has paid $6.5m (£4m) for a majority stake in Khorol Zerno, which owns 10,000ha in Eastern Siberia, while Morgan Stanley has bought 40,000ha in Ukraine. Last year South Korea's Daewoo signed a 99-year lease for 1.3m hectares of agricultural land in Madagascar.

Devinder Sharma, analyst with the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in India, predicted civil unrest.

"Outsourcing food production will ensure food security for investing countries but would leave behind a trail of hunger, starvation and food scarcities for local populations," he said. "The environmental tab of highly intensive farming – devastated soils, dry aquifer, and ruined ecology from chemical infestation – will be left for the host country to pick up."

In Madagascar, the Daewoo agreement was seen as a factor in the subsequent uprising that led to the ousting of the president, Marc Ravalomanana. His replacement, Andry Rajoelina, immediately moved to repeal the deal.

Concern is mounting because much of the land has been targeted for its good water supplies and proximity to ports. According to a report last month by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development, the land deals "create risks and opportunities".

"Increased investment may bring benefits such as GDP growth and improved government revenues, and may create opportunities for economic development and livelihood improvement. But they may result in local people losing access to the resources on which they depend for their food security – particularly as some key recipient countries are themselves faced with food security challenges", said the authors.

According to a US-based thinktank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, nearly $20bn to $30bn a year is being spent by rich countries on land in developing countries.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Generation must speak to generation

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:00 GMT

We must learn from the bitter experiences of the past, if we are to avoid history repeating itself

Iran is a land of recurrence. In the Middle East, it is a unique country. In 1905, Iran was the first country in the region where a revolution for democracy and freedom, the constitutional revolution, took place. Yet, in the aftermath of that revolution, we Iranians came to face a new breed of dictatorship.

Following the ensuing era of suppression and oppression, we again revolted and we were again repressed. In 1953, through a coup d'etat orchestrated by the United States, the shah deposed our elected prime minister and champion of nationalising the country's oil industry, and we lost the greatest opportunity to become versed in democracy. The coup d'etat was followed by a new era of repression and executions. And, of course, in the years that followed we had other uprisings, which were also quashed.

Soon, the best and the brightest of our university students joined opposition groups and guerrilla factions, and many were executed. Then we arrived at the 1979 Islamic revolution. We knew what we didn't want, but we didn't know what we did want. During the shah's regime, we didn't suffer severe economic issues – we simply wanted freedom.

We therefore revolted and changed the regime. But freedom was just a word to us, a slogan that we liked. We had no real concept of freedom. Soon, hundreds of political parties proclaimed their existence and, because we did not fully comprehend democracy, each was quick to accuse the other of affiliations with foreign governments. None of these political factions had a plan for the future. In tandem, hundreds of politically oriented magazines and newspapers were founded, each of which would publish articles in opposition to another publication or political party. It all escalated to the point at which opportunists grabbed control of power. And it all became what it all became.

Today, history is again repeating itself in Iran. My generation, all of whom are over 50, have witnessed our dreams falling by the wayside one by one. Now, the next generation bravely demonstrates in the streets. They are beaten up, arrested and tortured, and, when they are killed during police attacks, the government does not easily release their bodies to their families, who are often banned from holding funerals for their children.

The problem we Iranians have is that there has always been a gap, a great divide, between our generations. The new generation does not learn from the bitter experiences of the older generation and only winds up repeating them.

Perhaps the reason for this repetition is the severe censorship that has taken root in Iran. To erase people's memories of their history, each regime that has come to power has immediately set out to change the history books taught in schools and universities. They have banned previously published books from being reprinted and have gone as far as changing the names of streets that the previous regime had named after notable people and important events. Perhaps the reason for this repetition is that independent journals and newspapers have been banned and the older generation cannot convey its own experiences to the next generation.

Perhaps the reason for this repetition is that Iranians read very little – despite a population of more than 70 million, the print run of books published in Iran by independent publishers has dwindled to 700 copies. We seem to have regressed to pre-Gutenberg times. Perhaps the reason for this repetition is that we cling to our past and rarely look to the future. We are forever proud of our glorious ancient history and are satisfied by it. We have adopted only a thin veneer of modernity. We drive the latest models of Mercedes and BMWs down our avenues. We use postmodern architectural designs in the construction of our homes, shopping centres and boutiques. Yet many of us still have a culture of religious zeal and fanaticism in our blood. And perhaps the reason for this repetition is also that Iran has not experienced a renaissance.

Today, another movement is under way in Iran. The country's riot police, armed with the most modern paraphernalia purchased from European countries, stifle and subdue Iranian protesters. With the aid of one of the most advanced kinds of software, also bought from the west, thousands of websites and weblogs are filtered. Internet speed has been deliberately reduced, and as a result news is spread mostly by word of mouth in a country that boasts the greatest number of blogs in the Middle East. Iranian literature, which despite censorship had flourished during the 1980s and 1990s, has been afflicted by asphyxiation and hopelessness during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because censorship is being practised in a most senseless and severe fashion.

Iran has the potential of being one of the wealthiest and most cultured countries. But today, according to government statistics, more than half its population lives below the poverty level, and I suspect the actual figure is even greater than this.

Consequently, Iranians are angry. For almost 30 years, political, social, and economic pressures have been imposed on them. They have not even had the freedom to choose their own manner of dress. Many work two shifts a day to earn a pittance for their family to get by on. It is no surprise that they now demonstrate in the streets. The problem, however, is that they lack an earnest leader, something they have always needed. Most of those who could, under these circumstances, lead this movement have been assassinated or crushed in solitary confinement, or have grown old in isolation in the corner of their homes. It is for these reasons that I believe history in Iran will again repeat itself. Let us assume that the Iranian people succeed in changing or reforming the current regime – what then? What do we want to do next? And there is no answer to this question.

These nights Iranians shout "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) and "Death to the dictator" from their rooftops. These are the same phrases repeated on the nights of the revolution against the shah's rule. However, a new and encouraging twist in this new uprising, whether it succeeds or is again quashed, is that in street demonstrations they walk in silence. There is no sign of those clenched fists and shouts of death to this and that. And in this silence lies a secret, which at some time in the future Iran, with all its paradoxes, will reveal to the world.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds